Misuse use of Strong 2C

[manig]

In last 3 days saw two different 'experts' open 2C following

xxx, KQJTxxx, AKxx, void and he announced Strong or 8.5 or more tricks.

Another example AKQJXXXXX, VOID, X, AXX. In this case 2C was announced as strong

I think THESE BIDS ARE NOT LEGAL PER ACBL.

ACBL requires that 2C opening A) can not be psyched :rolleyes: has certain ( 17 ? ) HCPS. Some of Tds do not know this or fail to inforce this rule, pls clarify and let TDs know exactly what is permitted.

I would like to see reponse to this. Thanks

[awm]

While it's true that 2♣ can't be psyched, there is no specific rule about high card point or defensive trick requirements for the 2♣ opening. There is somewhere a semi-official document indicating that AKQJxxxxx xx x x is a legal 2♣ opening (9 tricks). I've seen regional-level directors rule that opening 2♣ on the same hand with diamonds instead of spades (so not one trick from game) is also okay.

 

Basically I think the rule is based on intent -- if the person opening 2♣ thinks they have a strong hand (and explains it as "I have nine tricks" or the like) then it's okay. If they say "I was trying to trick the opponents" then it's a psych.

[inquiry]

These can hardly be psyches, as they were properly alerted and explained.

 

xxx, KQJTxxx, AKxx, void

was alerted as either Strong or 8.5 or more tricks. It is not hard to imagine that hand winning 6H and 2.5 diamonds for 8.5 tricks

 

AKQJXXXXX, VOID, X, AXX.

 

In this case 2C was announced as strong has 10 tricks, 5 controls, 3 quick tricks and first round control in 3 suits and second round control in the fourth. That, is clearly a strong hand.

[glen]

xxx, KQJTxxx, AKxx, void

was alerted as either Strong or 8.5 or more tricks. It is not hard to imagine that hand winning 6H and 2.5 diamonds for 8.5 tricks

The actual hand had only 13 cards, and only 6♥s (one less x to get 3-6-4-0), so for this hand itself only 5 tricks available in ♥s and thus less than 8.5 tricks.

[keylime]

Hand 2 I'd consider a 2C. Hand 1, not close.

 

Hand like these are why I have a defense over 2C. Recently I had a legitimate expert open 2C on AQJxxxxxx KQx x void.

[blackshoe]

The GCC says a 2♣ opener, with one exception not applicable here, must be "strong". Unfortunately, nowhere does the ACBL define "strong", so I asked Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, for clarification. IIRC, he said "if the player believes his hand to be strong, it's a legitimate 2♣ opener." Another National TD told me "players are opening 2♣ on weaker and weaker hands these days."

 

That first hand is, imo, with seven playing tricks, not close to "strong". I would rule illegal convention, but based on the above I could be wrong. The second one I would rule a legal 2♣ opening.

 

These days, when an opponent opens 2♣, I ask about style, and I am much more willing than I used to be to compete against it, particularly at matchpoints.

[Winstonm]

I took this to committee in Dallas years ago.

 

Unless something has changed, and I don't think so, here is the findings.

 

As long as the convention card is properly marked as either x number of HCPs or some trick requirement, then QJxxxxxxxxx, x, x, void could be opened 2C under the 9 tricks requirement of the bid and be legal.

[blackshoe]

As long as the convention card is properly marked as either x number of HCPs or some trick requirement, then QJxxxxxxxxx, x, x, void could be opened 2C under the 9 tricks requirement of the bid and be legal.

 

That hand is so wildly unbalanced as to not constitute a valid illustration of the problem.

 

IMO, the implication of "strong" in connection with the Std American artificial 2♣ opening is that it includes not only offensive strength, but also defensive strength. The hand above has no defensive strength whatsoever.

 

I believe it was Paul Soloway who suggested a 2♣ opener should have more quick tricks than losers. Works for me. :P

[jikl]

IMHO, I only open 2♣ on hands I am scared will get passed out otherwise. I would not even think about opening any of the examples given with 2♣. I have plenty of time to get back in and just bid game if need be without screwing with partner's mind.

 

Sean

[Winstonm]

As long as the convention card is properly marked as either x number of HCPs or some trick requirement, then QJxxxxxxxxx, x, x, void could be opened 2C under the 9 tricks requirement of the bid and be legal.

 

That hand is so wildly unbalanced as to not constitute a valid illustration of the problem.

 

IMO, the implication of "strong" in connection with the Std American artificial 2♣ opening is that it includes not only offensive strength, but also defensive strength. The hand above has no defensive strength whatsoever.

 

I believe it was Paul Soloway who suggested a 2♣ opener should have more quick tricks than losers. Works for me. :P

I do not disagree - I am just stating what is legal under the current law. My opponents card in Dallas was marked: 2C-strong exp: 9 tricks or points. That was the exact marking. Phil Merry, national tournament director, ruled this legal and threated to bring action against me for a frivilous committee if I questioned his ruling - I did so anyway.

 

Now what is legal is not necessarily right - and obviously I didn't think so back then and haven't changed my mind. If an opponent can open 2C on a 24 HCP NT hand or a 14-count 9 trick hand then overcaller is in a tremendously vulnerable position if he happens to have a decent hand would warrant action against a less powerful HCP opening but is suicide to bid on if opener holds the big NT hand.

 

I only brought up the QJ 11th hand because I brought up that very hand in committee, and Phil Merry said as long as the card was marked 9 tricks or points it would be a legal bid.

 

So according to law, if the bid meets either the trick requirement or the point requirement it is not a psyche.

[helene_t]

Sigh. Bridge is much more interesting if you focus on improving your own bidding instead of that of the opps.

 

The TD should just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life.

[glen]

Sigh. Bridge is much more interesting if you focus on improving your own bidding instead of that of the opps.

 

The TD should just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life.

The focus would be on improving the explaining and ruling-following of the opps. xxx KQJTxx AKxx --- is not 8 1/2 tricks and is not strong, and one is (sadly) not allowed to psyche a 2♣ opening in ACBL events. So the TD has to consider if 7 and a bit tricks is anywhere close to 8 1/2 tricks - if not the TD needs to rule it as a psyche and adjust correspondingly. Whether or not the TD rules it is not a psyche, then the TD should explain to the 2♣ opening side that if they continue to open hands like this, they should change their description of the bid to reflect their implicit agreements.

 

So quite a bit of work for the TD instead of "just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life." Did you focus much on this thread before posting?

[keylime]

Here's my thought on this:

 

As most of you know, I play a forcing club 90% of the time. Due to this the ACBL GCC has clear language on what is considered "strong" (15+ hcp).

 

So, there have been times where I've opened a strong club on this hand type:

 

xx

AKT9xxx

AK9x

x

 

Surely this is a good playing hand. Yet I've been called to committe twice because the point counters are thinking it's not a "strong hand". For the record I won both appeals with deposits retained.

 

Thusly, some definition of a strong 2C opening is sorely needed. I don't have a problem when it's an acol 2 bid that has excellent playing strength (like the example I gave). It's the 15 count 2 suiters with a void and lack of controls that I have a problem with.

 

I do want the concept of judgment to be retained, but not at the cost of potentially damaging the opps' methods.

[pbleighton]

"Thusly, some definition of a strong 2C opening is sorely needed. I don't have a problem when it's an acol 2 bid that has excellent playing strength (like the example I gave). It's the 15 count 2 suiters with a void and lack of controls that I have a problem with."

 

Why do you have a problem with this, as long as it is properly disclosed?

 

It seems to me that you have a sense of false entitlement on this issue, strange coming from one who plays (somewhat) unusual methods. A little cognitive dissonance here :)

 

Perhaps the best solution to this is to require an alert if the 2C opener may be made on less than x points, with x something like 19 or 20.

 

We should also get a definitive ruling from the ACBL that we know if the 2C opener has an absolute floor of x hcp or not, regardless of alerting, and if so what is x.

 

If we get such a ruling, I suspect x will turn out to be 15.

 

I don't care one way or the other. I consider the strong 2C opening to be an abomination.

 

Peter

[blackshoe]

I only brought up the QJ 11th hand because I brought up that very hand in committee, and Phil Merry said as long as the card was marked 9 tricks or points it would be a legal bid.

 

So according to law, if the bid meets either the trick requirement or the point requirement it is not a psyche.

 

 

Not according to law, according to Phil Merry. I wonder if Rick Beye would agree with him?

 

What I wrote upthread is my opinion of what constitutes a "strong" hand. I am fully aware that opinion does not entirely coincide with current ACBL policy.

[awm]

It just seems weird to me that there are hands where I will be ruled against if I try to open a strong 1♣ but where the field is allowed to open a strong 2♣ without it being considered a psych. After all, the precision 1♣ opening has a much lower minimum than a "normal" strong 2♣ method. I'm pretty sure that if anyone tries to open 1♣ strong with nine solid spades and out it will not fly, whereas this is specifically a legal 2♣ opening.

[blackshoe]

Sigh. Bridge is much more interesting if you focus on improving your own bidding instead of that of the opps.

 

The TD should just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life.

Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2♣, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?

[pbleighton]

"Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2♣, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?"

 

You guess.

 

Since when are you entitled to have your opponents' bidding methods be easy to deal with?

 

As I said in a provious post, I think it comes down to disclosure.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

It just seems weird to me that there are hands where I will be ruled against if I try to open a strong 1♣ but where the field is allowed to open a strong 2♣ without it being considered a psych. After all, the precision 1♣ opening has a much lower minimum than a "normal" strong 2♣ method. I'm pretty sure that if anyone tries to open 1♣ strong with nine solid spades and out it will not fly, whereas this is specifically a legal 2♣ opening.

That's the real issue. If the cops see you doing 65 in a 65 zone, they aren't allowed to pull you over for speeding. If they see you doing 70 in a 65 zone, they aren't forced to pull you over. The ACBL 'rules cops' have decided to let things skate on the strong openings.

 

But by using selective enforcement, and not letting people open it as 1♣, would be a serious issue for those of us using Precision. In fact, everybody I've played against understands that 16+ means 16+ or the equivalent strength, and I've never had the director called on me for being a little under. I haven't tested it too far, as of yet.

[blackshoe]

"Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2?, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?"

 

You guess.

 

Since when are you entitled to have your opponents' bidding methods be easy to deal with?

 

As I said in a provious post, I think it comes down to disclosure.

 

Peter

I don't think it's possible to set up a defense to a "strong" 2♣ opening with as wide a possible variation as we are discussing. Certainly, as someone mentioned upthread, there will be hands with which one would be foolish not to compete against the weak end, yet suicidal to compete against the strong end.

 

Nota Bene: I have no objection to such a wide ranging strong opening as such, but I don't believe it should be legal under the GCC.

 

I never said anyone was "entitled" to have easy to deal with opposing methods - though I will say that if one is playing under the GCC one is entitled to have easier to deal with opposing methods than if one was playing under the Mid-Chart or Superchart.

 

Yes, it comes down to disclosure. I expect I will die before I get full disclosure from any but the most ethical bridge players - around here, it's like pulling teeth to get more than a one word response, usually the name of the damn convention - and yes, I know the alert regulation says lhat's insufficient, and so do the TDs around here. Not that it makes any difference. :rolleyes:

[glen]

The use of 2♣ as an artificial "strong" opening is covered under the GCC as "strong", not "strong or some number of tricks". However "strong" can be considered in points, or tricks, or some other measure of playing value. So "strong or 8 1/2 tricks" means "strong in points or strong by 8 1/2+ tricks".

 

One wonders what the minimum number of tricks is? It is tempting to go to the NABC with a cc marked for the 2♣ opening as "strong or 3+ tricks" just to see what happens.

 

If they allow 7+ tricks, it is possible to have the gambling 2♣ opener - putting in those solid 7 card suit hands without lots of stoppers. One could even have fun sequences like 2♣(strong or 7+ tricks)-2♦(waiting, not 11+);-Pass(by opener with long ♦s). This certainly makes the 2♣ opening a lot of fun, and hopefully the opponents will not focus the TD on this fun.

[hrothgar]

I don't think it's possible to set up a defense to a "strong" 2♣ opening with as wide a possible variation as we are discussing. Certainly, as someone mentioned upthread, there will be hands with which one would be foolish not to compete against the weak end, yet suicidal to compete against the strong end.

Why should I care?

 

There is no such thing as a perfect bidding system, opening, or defense. I don't care what set of methods that you chose to play. There exists some set of hands that your method will handle well. There exists another set of hands that your methods won't cope with nearly as nicely.

 

The fact that this second set of hands isn't empty really doesn't concern me that much. On the other hand, if the second set of hands is extremely large, that might get my attention. However, I have yet to hear anyone claim that a 2♣ opening showing either a (some set of strong hands) or (some set of weak hands) is particularly difficult to defend against. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to argue that if its difficult to create a good defense against a method, that suggests that the method has theoretic merit. It should be something that we want to encourage, not stamp into oblivion.

 

One interesting analogy somes to mind: There are many species of multi 2♦ opening. I've seen a number of treatments in which the 2♦ opening showed either

 

1. A weak 2 opening in Hearts or

2. A weak 2 opening in Spades or

3. A strong balanced hand with 22-23 HCP or

4. A 4-4-4-1 hand with 17-24 HCP

 

My impression is that most people who play a multi have been migrating to a "weak only" bid with no strong adjuncts. Multiplexing the weak and the strong hand types isn't nearly as efficient.

 

In a similar fashion, I've seen a number of multi-type 2♣ openings. One favorite seems to be using 2♣ as either a game forcing hand or a weak in Diamonds. Back when I was experimenting with Ice Relay, I used to play a 2♣ opening that showed either

 

1. 22 - 23 HCP balanced

2. a weak 2 in Diamonds

3. Preemptive with 5+ Spades and 4+ Hearts

 

These methods don't seem to be particularly popular, however, I've never heard that they were impossible to defend against.

[Winstonm]

Here you sit in second seat with: Kxx, AQ10xx, KJx, xx.

 

RHO opens 2C:

 

He may have: AQJ, xxx, AQx, AKQx and his parner xxx, KJ9x, xxxx, xx.

He may have: x, x, AQ, AKQxxxxxx

 

You in second seat are at a tremendous disadvantage as you are forced to guess what hand is held - if you pass, the action may be at 3n when it is your turn to bid again. If you bid now, you can get killed. And if you pass, you are brutalized by the opener's who chose 1C, either natural or systemic - as all those tables everyone gets to bid 1H with your hand.

 

I believe the ACBL needs to adjust their regulations of 2C that it is only a single hand type. Old ACOl used a playing strenth 1-round force hand, but those were natural bids - to try to accomodate those hands into strong 2C caused the problem, IMO.

 

I would like to see the rule changed to where it is a choice - 2C can be either a trick-taking hand with no point limit, or it can be a strong HCP hand, but it cannot be both. Players have the option of chosing which they want to play.

[hrothgar]

Here you sit in second seat with: Kxx, AQ10xx, KJx, xx.

 

RHO opens 2C:

 

He may have: AQJ, xxx, AQx, AKQx and his parner xxx, KJ9x, xxxx, xx.

He may have: x, x, AQ, AKQxxxxxx

 

You in second seat are at a tremendous disadvantage as you are forced to guess what hand is held - if you pass, the action may be at 3n when it is your turn to bid again. If you bid now, you can get killed. And if you pass, you are brutalized by the opener's who chose 1C, either natural or systemic - as all those tables everyone gets to bid 1H with your hand.

 

I believe the ACBL needs to adjust their regulations of 2C that it is only a single hand type. Old ACOl used a playing strenth 1-round force hand, but those were natural bids - to try to accomodate those hands into strong 2C caused the problem, IMO.

 

I would like to see the rule changed to where it is a choice - 2C can be either a trick-taking hand with no point limit, or it can be a strong HCP hand, but it cannot be both. Players have the option of chosing which they want to play.

This posting is insane

 

First: I don't believe that this opening style is likely to be effective. I think that you are obsessing way too much about the difficulty in overcalling this 2♣ opening and ignoring the fact that its going to be extremely difficult to design any kind of reasonable advance structure over this opening. I suspect that the side emplying this opening is going to shoot themselves in the foot more times than not.

 

Second: Lets assume that your correct. This random undisciplined 2♣ is the be all and end all of openings. Why the hell should you (or for that matter, the ACBL) go and ban a bid because its good/effective. Should system regulations really be used to protect inferior bidding methods that can't otherwise compete?

 

If players are able to effectly describe/disclose their methods, they should be allow to use them in "real" competition.

[Winstonm]

This posting is insane

 

Don't sugarcoat it Richard - tell it like it is. :D

 

Here is my contention, wrong I'm sure.

 

The ACBL (not me, them) states you cannot psyche a "stong 2C opener"; however, that same organization fails to define what this means other than allowing both playing trick hands and strong HCP hands to open 2C.

 

This is also a more useful tactic at matchpoints than imps, especially team imps where the match is long. At matchpoints, you play 2 boards and then on to the next set of opponents.

 

If you agree to open any 7 trick hand 2C and so mark it on your card, it becomes legal. The ACBL has said you cannot psyche a strong 2C but leaves it to the bidder to determine what "strong" means. Because of this, the rule is ridiculous.

 

By defining the hands as "trick-taking hands", partnerships could evolve a system where 7 trick hands are opened 2C, such as xx, xxx, AKQJxxx, x.

 

The point is there is no risk to opener's side - if LHO has a hand that might need to get into the auction and does, opener can still compete in his diamond suit with no risk - all the risk of bidding falls on overcaller, who might be bidding into a 22 point NT under the current rules.

 

And at mp's, it only takes one steal of a board with a hand like this to win a bunch of marbles.

 

My point being that IF the ACBL wants to create this rule, then it should be modified to be more exact or done away with completely. As it is now, it is very one-sided. The 2C "strong" is a silly tag, and thus 2C should be no different than any other bid and psyches should be allowed.

 

So my idea is one or the other - either change the rule to conform to the "strong 2C" the ACBL mentions, or allow psyches of "varying strength 2C". But to try to enforce a ban of a strong 2C psyche under the present rules seems to me ludicrous.